- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26436 WP No. 10286 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10286 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI G.K.SRINIVAS S/O LATE G.S.KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT 3RD CROSS, CSI LAYOUT OLD GOODS SHED ROAD TUMAKURU – 572 101. 2. SHRI MANJU BHARGAV S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT GOWDA MANSION GANDHINAGAR TUMAKURU – 572 102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVI KUMARA M., ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI N.S.JEEVARATHNA S/O LATE N.SAMUEL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT DEEPAK PAPERS COMPOUND DARABENDRE ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA TUMAKURU – 572 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26436 WP No. 10286 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 11/12/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKUR IN MA NO. 18/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED DT. 16/03/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR ON IA FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, IN OS NO. 724/2022, AS PER ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners – defendants are before this Court calling in question an order dated 11.12.2023, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, in M.A.No.18/2023, whereby, the order dated 16.03.2023, passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, on an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, filed in O.S.No.724/2022, is set aside. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26436 WP No. 10286 of 2024 2. Sri Ravi Kumara M., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners - defendants, who have called the said order in question, would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition and several submissions made with regard to the nature of the property, which is claimed by the plaintiff. According to him, it is a park and according to the learned counsel for respondent - plaintiff, it is not a park; it is allotted to his vendor by the Church of South India and the plaintiff has purchased it from the vendor, who is an allottee from the hands of Church of South India. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners were permitted for the usage of the space during the Ganesha festival and not for anything else and it is the property of the plaintiff. He further submits that the very title of the property is doubtful. Be those submissions as it may. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26436 WP No. 10286 of 2024 4. A coordinate bench of this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo, qua the property, in terms of the order dated 18.04.2024. Therefore, the parties shall maintain status quo, till the disposal of the suit. Since the suit is for bare injunction, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to dispose the suit with an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the matter. All contentions of both the parties, shall remain open. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. I.A.No.1/2024 is also disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12